<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalties Under Section 74 CGST Act Upheld For Wilful Suppression Through Non-Filing Returns Despite Receiving Client Payments</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85367</link>
    <description>HC affirmed penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act against petitioner for wilful suppression of facts through non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST. Despite petitioner&#039;s claim that non-payment resulted from client&#039;s default, evidence showed partial payments were received from the client. Court held that Section 74 penalties require proof of intentional evasion through fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression - mere non-payment is insufficient. Here, petitioner&#039;s conduct demonstrated wilful suppression as defined in Explanation-2, warranting penalties. Court rejected argument that Section 74 notice was invalid because tax was paid before notice issuance, noting interest under Section 50 remained unpaid. Additional consequential penalties were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=793725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalties Under Section 74 CGST Act Upheld For Wilful Suppression Through Non-Filing Returns Despite Receiving Client Payments</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85367</link>
      <description>HC affirmed penalties under Section 74 of CGST Act against petitioner for wilful suppression of facts through non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST. Despite petitioner&#039;s claim that non-payment resulted from client&#039;s default, evidence showed partial payments were received from the client. Court held that Section 74 penalties require proof of intentional evasion through fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression - mere non-payment is insufficient. Here, petitioner&#039;s conduct demonstrated wilful suppression as defined in Explanation-2, warranting penalties. Court rejected argument that Section 74 notice was invalid because tax was paid before notice issuance, noting interest under Section 50 remained unpaid. Additional consequential penalties were upheld.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>